On 03/06/2014 07:15 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/06/2014 08:24 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> if (def->label) {
>> virBufferAddLit(buf, ">\n");
>> - virBufferEscapeString(buf, " <label>%s</label>\n",
>> + virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);
>> + virBufferEscapeString(buf, "<label>%s</label>\n",
>> def->label);
>> + virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
>> virBufferAddLit(buf, "</seclabel>\n");
> For small hunks like this where all the context is local, this just adds
> lines of code. I'm almost of the opinion that it's easier to have each
> function start with no indent, and any strings it prints locally are
> correctly indented (allowing leading whitespace), while any helper
> functions it calls are surrounded by AdjustIndent (since the helper
> function also prints at a local top level).
Yeah, I thought of that too, but it made it easier to verify, as you say
below, and once I got going it was difficult to pick a cutoff point, so
I just did it 100%.
> The clincher is that our testsuite validates that we didn't break any
> output :) ACK.
Definitely I wouldn't have been able to make these changes with any
level of confidence without the tests (and yes, they did catch a few
things I'd missed, e.g. accidentally adding indent instead of removing).
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
